Taking a look at words
we often use-and misuse. Please let us know whetherthese attempts at clarification are helpful to you.

Today's words are: "life/death."

The Dictionary definitions: life: "the quality thatdistinguishes
a vital and functional being from a deadbody;" death:
"a permanent cessation of all vitalfunctions: the end of
life." [Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster,
Springfield, MA (1987)].

*
* * *
* * * *

Sometimes
the most profound concepts get squeezed into words that serve perfectly well in
ordinary conversation, but then fail miserably when carried over into more
technical discussions. Consider the pair "life/death." These two terms
appear to be simply the opposite of one another: life is the absence of death,
and death is the absence of life.

But what is each
of these? Something we have or something we are? A possession that belongs to
us, or a state of being that characterizes us? Is there only one kind of life?
Is it appropriate to ask when life begins and when life ends? Does death begin
when life ends? Are these instantaneous or gradual changes?

If we reflect on the
way that these words are used, we find that "life" is commonly spoken
of as "something that we have." This ordinary usage is certainly
augmented for the Christian by the common usage in the Bible of "spiritual
life" as something given to us through faith in Christ. As long as these
expressions are used to convey existential relationships, few if any problems
arise, but if we insist upon using them technically, then all kinds of problems
arise. First of all, we need

as several different
kinds of death. There is biological life (Bible: body), human life (a body
with biological properties associated with Homo sapiens), personal
life (Bible: soul) and spiritual life (Bible: spirit) as well as
biological death, human death, personal death, and spiritual death.

Biological life
characterizes all living creatures, human life describes living human beings,
personal life describes the characteristics of human life when the individual is
capable of exhibiting the properties attributed to selfhood, and spiritual life
describes the characteristics of human, personal life when considered in terms
of transcendence and its relationship with God. We will deal at more length with
the "body/soul/spirit" and the "human/personal" distinctions
in subsequent Word Mazes. For the present it is sufficient to note that
"life" and "death" can be used to describe the state of a
creature unambiguously only if suitable modifying terms are included.

Secondly, we should
take note of the fact that in a technical sense there are no such entities as
"life" or "death." We can understand this by asking,
"What must be added to a non-living body to make it into a living
body?" In keeping with the popular use of the word, the addition of
"life" to a non-living body would be necessary to make it a living
body. But if we understand this to mean that "life" is some kind of
entity, then we are making a serious mistake. For there is no entity that must
be addedfrom outside to make a non-living body into a living body; what
is necessary is that the individual biological organs be present and able to
function, and that their proper functioning (blood circulation, lungs breathing,
etc.) be initiated.

If "life" and
"death" were entities, then the following sentences should make sense:

"When a living
creature dies, life is taken away."

"When a living
creature dies, death is added."

"When a
non-living creature becomes alive, death is taken away."

So we are led to the
conclusion that a subtle transformation of "life" and
"death" from nouns to the corresponding adjectives "alive"
and "dead" is what is needed to enable us to use these terms in a
meaningful way in technical discourse. It is not that "she has life,"
but that "she is alive." Being alive is a property of her whole self.
It is not that "he has death," but that "he is dead." Being
dead is a property of his whole self.

This shift from noun to
adjective, while correcting one potential source of error. does not do away with
the need for the adjectives for "living" and "dead" to be
appropriately modified. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between the
different meanings of being "biologically alive," "personally
alive." and "spiritually alive." just as between being
"biologically. dead." "personally dead." and
"spiritually dead."

It is also necessary to
notice the relationship between these terms. If we limit ourselves to our
existence in this world, it is not possible to be personally alive without being
biologically alive, and it is not possible to be spiritually alive without being
personally alive. It is not possible to be biologically dead without being
personally dead, but it is possible to be personally dead without being
biologically dead. Unfortunately, the expression "spiritually. dead"
breaks this symmetry, for it is used to imply that a living person is out of
proper relationship with God-, thus to be "spiritually dead" in this
life, it is necessary to be both "biologically alive" and
"personally alive."

Thirdly, we need to
recognize that "being alive" and "being dead" describe
different states depending on which modifier is used with them. and that each
involves a process and not just an event in time. Consider as an example the
situation of the results of conception brought about by a man and a woman. The
fertilized ovum is "biologically alive," and it is also an example of
"biological human life." Even the sperm and the ovum were alive before
conception, and they were both human sperm and ovum. The newly fertilized ovum,
however, is neither "personally alive" (i.e., manifesting the
properties of selfhood) nor "spiritually alive" (i.e., manifesting the
right personal relationship with God).

In the normal progress
of time, the unborn that is biologically and humanly alive from conception
begins to show the characteristics of being "personally alive" as the
consequences of being biologically alive develop so as to be able to give rise
to these characteristics. It is not until several weeks after birth that the
neocortex begins to function and full claim for being "personally
alive" can be sustained. It is not until several years after birth that the
young child can be considered to have become responsible for his or her choices
and to have entered into being "spiritually alive" when those choices
are centered in Christ.

The reverse process
occurs at the end of life: being "personally dead" frequently precedes
being "biologically dead." The loss of the capability of experiencing
selfhood usually occurs with the permanent end of brain functioning, whereas
being "biologically dead" may occur at some later time when the final
set of biological functions (e.g., growth of finger nails and hair) ceases.

In summary, "being
alive" and "being dead" are characteristics of a whole creature
and must be carefully modified to take into account that both are processes
extended over time. Additional aspects of this discussion will be continued in
the next Word Maze.

Is this description
lively enough for you, or do you find itssemantic distinctions deadly?